Evidence-Based Violence

The use of “evidence‑based” rhetoric to justify harm, discrimination, or exclusion, often by cherry‑picking studies, misrepresenting findings, or demanding impossible standards of evidence from marginalized groups. Evidence‑based violence is common in debates about indigenous rights, alternative medicine, or social programs: a politician cites a single study to cut welfare, or a doctor denies pain treatment to a patient whose symptoms don’t fit the textbook. The violence is in the weaponization of evidence to serve pre‑existing biases while claiming neutrality.

Evidence-Based Violence Example: “The insurance company denied coverage for her rare condition, citing a systematic review that excluded all studies with fewer than 100 patients—evidence‑based violence, using methodological criteria to avoid providing care.”

Evidence-Based Violence by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal April 15, 2026

Evidence-based violence

A more specific term: the use of evidence (data, statistics, RCTs) to justify policies or practices that cause harm to individuals or communities. Examples include: using cost-benefit analysis to close public hospitals in poor neighborhoods, citing crime statistics to justify mass incarceration or police brutality, or using “proven” teaching methods that segregate students. Evidence-based violence hides behind the legitimacy of “data-driven” decisions. Critics argue that evidence does not speak for itself; values determine what is done with evidence. Evidence-based violence is the dark side of the “what works” movement.

Evidence-based violence Example: “The city used crime statistics (evidence) to justify a stop-and-frisk policy. The policy reduced reported crime but terrorized Black and Latino youth. That’s evidence‑based violence.”

Evidence-based violence by Abzugal June 5, 2026